Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: Computer scientists suggest new spin on origins of evolvability

Expand Messages
  • james kohl
    From: Don Zimmerman ... DWZ: The term ridiculous is not often applied to scientific theories by scientists themselves, no matter how
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 28, 2013
      From: Don Zimmerman
      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:


      > Selection is for nutrients that benefit the thermodynamics of intracellular
      > signaling, which results in beneficial organism level thermoregulation and
      > controlled reproduction via the metabolism of the nutrients to pheromones. There
      > is nothing random about this because it represents bottom up nutrient control of
      > reproduction from the top down using the same molecular mechanisms (sans
      > mutations). You're not paying attention, are you?

      DWZ:
      The term "ridiculous" is not often applied to scientific theories by scientists themselves, no matter how misconceived or outdated the theories may appear. On the other hand, it is usually appropriate to apply that term to some of the reactions to scientific theories by non-scientists or to ideas that have been held over from an earlier pre-scientiic period of history. For example, the idea that evolution and speciation occurred because of the direction imparted by some creator or intelligent designer is indeed extremely ridiculous.�

      JK: DWZ wrote (previously): "...mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory. Without random mutations, the whole concept of evolution by natural selection would collapse, because there would be no variability from which to select."

      Had I made such a ridiculous statement, I might also have removed it from the context of further discussion of variability and selection. Clearly, "...the idea that evolution and speciation occurred because of the direction imparted by..." random mutations is the most ridiculous thing anyone could infer in the context of evolutionary psychology. I suspect that's why DWZ want to change the focus from variability and selection to the idea of Creation or Intelligent Design.� I prefer to discuss facts and have provided them (e.g., in context). The citation came from Arthropods and inherited bacteria: from counting the symbionts to understanding how symbionts count
      "The mutational source of adaptation - a symbiont in other members of the ecological community rather than a mutation of existing genetic material - is likely to change our understanding of arthropod evolution."

      James V. Kohl
      Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
      Independent researcher
      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.




      Best regards,

      Donald W. Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canada
      dwzimm@...
      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899

    • james kohl
      In the context of the thread The Necessity for Random Mutations Nancy Bovee wrote: Your assumption of responsibility or causation which I hear you state
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 28, 2013
        In the context of the thread "The Necessity for Random Mutations"

        Nancy Bovee wrote:
        Your assumption of "responsibility" or "causation" which I hear you state lots of times when you misarticulate counter arguments is NOT what is being stated most of the time (I can't speak for everyone).

        JK: We now (i.e., again) see that Don Zimmerman clearly states the cause and effect relationship that I have claimed is ridiculous, but that Nancy Bovee claims I may have repeatedly misarticulated. Is DWZ the exception here when he writes that:
        "Far from being ridiculous, mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory. Without random mutations, the whole concept of evolution by natural selection would collapse, because there would be no variability from which to select."

        I think he is merely echoing the opinions of others who are no longer willing to come forward (again) to make such ridiculous claims. Thus, progress may have been made here, even though it is not acknowledged and even if only DWZ is left to claim that " mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory." 

        If progress has been made, it is important to acknowledge it, as it may set the tone of future discussions, which would eliminate random mutations theory (see for example: Arthropods and inherited bacteria: from counting the symbionts to understanding how symbionts count). "The mutational source of adaptation - a symbiont in other members of the ecological community rather than a mutation of existing genetic material - is likely to change our understanding of arthropod evolution."

        Earlier today a college student told me one of his professors continually made it a point to indirectly ridicule the beliefs of his Christian students by touting random mutations theory while explaining that we really don't know anything about the molecular mechanisms of how adaptive evolution occurs. (The university professor is a cell biologist.) But clearly we know that random mutations are not involved in the adaptive evolution of arthropods.

        If, like DWZ might do, this professor was teaching your child that "...mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory," would you not want him stopped from touting such nonsense? Or would it be best to wait until your child learned about genetics and epigenetics to find that the cell biology professor understood nothing about current perspectives on adaptive evolution?

        What if your child dropped out of college due to the frustration caused by this, or any other professor who was woefully under-informed? What if your child might have otherwise gone on to become the next Francis Collins (current director of the NIH and author of The Language of God)? What if, instead, your child went on to become the next Clarence 'Sonny' Williams, who after a decade of microRNA research had been available and detailed in the context of adaptive evolution, called for others to "stay tuned"? How long should your child be expected to "stay tuned" to a professor or to anyone else who is so opinionated and woefully under-informed about biologically based cause and effect in the context of adaptive evolution?

        James V. Kohl
        Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
        Independent researcher
        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
         
         
        From: Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, April 27, 2013 7:17:37 PM
        Subject: [evol-psych] Re: News: Computer scientists suggest new spin on origins of evolvability

         

        Far from being ridiculous, mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory. Without random mutations, the whole concept of evolution by natural selection would collapse, because there would be no variability from which to select. 





      • Don Zimmerman
        ... DWZ: Maybe some third-rate college in Texas would be willing to get rid of professors who teach evolutionary theory .... No, come to think of it, not even
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 28, 2013
          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:

          > If, like DWZ might do, this professor was teaching your child that "...mutations
          > are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory," would you not want him stopped
          > from touting such nonsense? Or would it be best to wait until your child learned
          > about genetics and epigenetics to find that the cell biology professor
          > understood nothing about current perspectives on adaptive evolution?
          >
          >
          > What if your child dropped out of college due to the frustration caused by this,
          > or any other professor who was woefully under-informed? What if your child might
          > have otherwise gone on to become the next Francis Collins (current director of
          > the NIH and author of The Language of God)?


          DWZ:
          Maybe some third-rate college in Texas would be willing to get rid of professors who teach evolutionary theory .... No, come to think of it, not even a small college in Texas would want to endanger its standing among responsible institutions of higher education by doing such a thing (unless it happened to receive a large financial grant from some company promoting and selling pheromone products to customers, but even then it would probably decide the possible gain is not worth the risk).

          Best regards,

          Donald W. Zimmerman
          Vancouver, BC, Canada
          dwzimm@...
          http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
        • Don Zimmerman
          ... DWZ: Maybe some third-rate college in Texas would be willing to get rid of professors who teach evolutionary theory .... No, come to think of it, not even
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 28, 2013
            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:

            > If, like DWZ might do, this professor was teaching your child that "...mutations
            > are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory," would you not want him stopped
            > from touting such nonsense? Or would it be best to wait until your child learned
            > about genetics and epigenetics to find that the cell biology professor
            > understood nothing about current perspectives on adaptive evolution?
            >
            >
            > What if your child dropped out of college due to the frustration caused by this,
            > or any other professor who was woefully under-informed? What if your child might
            > have otherwise gone on to become the next Francis Collins (current director of
            > the NIH and author of The Language of God)?


            DWZ:
            Maybe some third-rate college in Texas would be willing to get rid of professors who teach evolutionary theory .... No, come to think of it, not even a small college in Texas would want to endanger its standing among responsible institutions of higher education by doing such a thing (unless it happened to receive a large financial grant from some company promoting and selling pheromone products to customers, but even then it would probably decide the possible gain is not worth the risk).

            Best regards,

            Donald W. Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          • james kohl
            From: Don Zimmerman ... DWZ: Maybe some third-rate college in Texas would be willing to get rid of professors who teach evolutionary theory
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 28, 2013
              From: Don Zimmerman
              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:


              > If, like DWZ might do, this professor was teaching your child that "...mutations
              > are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory," would you not want him stopped
              > from touting such nonsense? Or would it be best to wait until your child learned
              > about genetics and epigenetics to find that the cell biology professor
              > understood nothing about current perspectives on adaptive evolution?
              >
              >
              > What if your child dropped out of college due to the frustration caused by this,
              > or any other professor who was woefully under-informed? What if your child might
              > have otherwise gone on to become the next Francis Collins (current director of
              > the NIH and author of The Language of God)?

              DWZ:
              Maybe some third-rate college in Texas would be willing to get rid of professors who teach evolutionary theory .... No, come to think of it, not even a small college in Texas would want to endanger its standing among responsible institutions of higher education by doing such a thing (unless it happened to receive a large financial grant from some company promoting and selling pheromone products to customers, but even then it would probably decide the possible gain is not worth the risk).�

              JK: I'm not complaining about teaching evolutionary theory, and you know it! Stop playing the fool.

              Teaching evolutionary theory is not the problem; teaching that "...mutations� are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory" is the problem. Epigenetic effects of sensory input are responsible for adaptive evolution, and everyone with any understanding of the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization knows that. We first addressed it in the context of molecular epigenetics in our 1996 Review article: From fertilization to adult sexual behavior�

              Your approach here is so hopelessly outdated, that others are not even willing to support your position that "...mutations� are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory," when only a few months ago there were several chiming in.�

              James V. Kohl

            • Leif Ekblad
              JK: I m not complaining about teaching evolutionary theory, and you know it! Stop playing the fool. Teaching evolutionary theory is not the problem; teaching
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 29, 2013
                

                JK: I'm not complaining about teaching evolutionary theory, and you know it! Stop playing the fool.

                Teaching evolutionary theory is not the problem; teaching that "...mutations� are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory" is the problem. Epigenetic effects of sensory input are responsible for adaptive evolution, and everyone with any understanding of the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization knows that. We first addressed it in the context of molecular epigenetics in our 1996 Review article: From fertilization to adult sexual behavior�

                Your approach here is so hopelessly outdated, that others are not even willing to support your position that "...mutations� are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory," when only a few months ago there were several chiming in.

                Leif Ekblad: I agree with DWZ, and most everybody else (except you) that mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean that I think evolution is based on single mutations in each lineage, as that seems to be a model of failure, and evolution would not favor models of failure. In bacteria, there is ample evidence that advantagous traits are transfered between populations, so each bacteria "species" doesn't need to evolve each trait by themselves. Certain bacteria also can self-repair extensive damage from radiation, which points against random mutations causing disease.  Since all other species presumably have evolved from these single-celled organisms, we can expect that other modes of vertical gene transfer prevailed in multi-celled organisms. Without these, they would fail and die out, as each species evolving it's own adaptations and disease resistance doesn't work. The retroviral inserts in our genomes points to viruses for novel DNA that evolution could use as a raw material for natural selection.
                 
                Leif Ekblad
                 
                 
              • james kohl
                From: Leif Ekblad JK: Teaching evolutionary theory is not the problem; teaching that ...mutations� are the heart and soul of evolutionary
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 29, 2013
                  From: Leif Ekblad
                  JK: Teaching evolutionary theory is not the problem; teaching that "...mutations� are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory" is the problem. Epigenetic effects of sensory input are responsible for adaptive evolution, and everyone with any understanding of the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization knows that. We first addressed it in the context of molecular epigenetics in our 1996 Review article: From fertilization to adult sexual behavior�

                  Your approach here is so hopelessly outdated, that others are not even willing to support your position that "...mutations� are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory," when only a few months ago there were several chiming in.

                  Leif Ekblad:
                  I�agree with DWZ, and most everybody else (except you) that mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory.

                  JK: Then stop trying to communicate with me. Your agreement with fools makes it pointless!

                  Leif Ekblad: The retroviral inserts in our genomes points to viruses for novel DNA that evolution could use as a raw material for natural selection.

                  JK: And author Greg Bear used my model of pheromonal communication to exemplify in science fiction novels how a new human species arose from non-human primates via HERV-dependent changes.

                  Congratulations, you have finally hit upon a biological fact, but missed its importance due to a ridiculous theory.

                  James V. Kohl
                  Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                  Independent researcher
                  Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.




                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.